the developmental learning framework for school...
TRANSCRIPT
The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders
DE
PA
RT
ME
NT
OF
ED
UC
AT
ION
VIC
TO
RIA
1
The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders represents a significant milestone in the Department’s endeavour to support the work of leaders. This body of work has been motivated by a strong research base that continues to confirm the influence of leadership on student outcomes and highlights the Department’s commitment to building leadership capacity across the Victorian government system. It is a critical element of the Office of School Education’s Learning to Lead Effective Schools strategy. Launched in 2006, the Strategy comprises:
> Principal Class Performance and Development;
> Principal Selection;> Learning to Lead Effective
Schools: Professional Learning for Aspirant and Current School Leaders; and
> The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders.
The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders is intended to assist teachers and school leaders to reflect on their leadership practice, identify strengths and areas for improvement and choose appropriate professional learning activities. It can be used to enrich conversations linked to performance and development reviews between Senior Education Officers and principals, among leadership teams and staff within schools and collegiate groups across schools. It will also support self-evaluation and reflection and provide a focus for coaching and mentoring partnerships.
The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders has been developed in recognition of the need to be explicit about the leadership capabilities that teachers and school leaders require to create and sustain effective learning environments. Importantly, it identifies developmental pathways that will enable teachers and school leaders to set directions for their professional learning. Together, with an appropriate level of support, clear developmental pathways will attract more teachers to leadership positions. It will also assist schools, regional offices and the central office of the Department to provide relevant, high quality leadership development opportunities for teachers and school leaders.
By making a commitment to the learning and growth of current and future leaders within our system, public confidence in the quality of government school leaders can only be strengthened. I encourage you to use The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders to support conversations about effective leadership in your school and inform the design of leadership development activities.
Darrell Fraser
Deputy Secretary Office of School Education Department of Education
March 2007
FO
RE
WO
RD
2
The notion of ‘development’ is perhaps the single most important concept in education. We use other terms to describe development — including growth, progress, learning, and improvement — but regardless of the term we use to describe it, the concept of individual development is the central idea underlying all teaching and learning. Masters, 1998, p3
The major purposes of professional development are to deepen understanding, transform beliefs and assumptions, and create a stream of continuous actions that change habits and affect practice. Such outcomes typically require sustained attention, study and action. Sparkes, 2003, p1
RA
TIO
NA
LEThe concept of a leadership
framework was first considered in 2004 as a component of the new Principal Class Performance and Development Process. During this early stage, work was undertaken by the Office of School Education (OSE) to map 13 core capabilities developed for the Department by the Hay Group against the Sergiovanni leadership model. Each capability was aligned with a Sergiovanni leadership domain.
Towards the end of 2005, Professor Patrick Griffin from the University of Melbourne’s Assessment Research Centre was engaged to assist OSE to extend and strengthen this work. Professor Griffin provided the methodology and the conceptual framework for the project as well as the assessment and measurement expertise necessary to construct The Developmental Learning Framework for School Leaders (Leadership Framework).
The primary purpose of the Leadership Framework is to build the leadership capacity of teachers and school leaders in the Victorian government school system. It identifies and describes the critical capabilities that leaders require to create the organisational conditions under which quality learning and teaching takes place. Defining the essential knowledge, skills and dispositions of an effective school leader will support the development of a shared understanding of effective school leadership across the system and emphasise the importance of ongoing professional learning.
The Leadership Framework describes development within five domains of leadership, distinguishing between levels of performance so that individuals can determine their current stage of development and monitor their progress over time. Thus, the potential of the Leadership Framework resides in its capacity to show where a teacher or school leader is located on a continuum and what they need to know and be able to do in order to improve. Conceptualising leadership development using this approach enables the Department to provide a clear direction about what it means to develop as a leader. It also implies that leadership is learnable. In other words, while leadership is a complex and multifaceted construct, there is a body of knowledge, skills and dispositions associated with leadership that can be learned.
3
The developmental nature of the Leadership Framework provides teachers and school leaders with the means to set directions for their professional learning over the long term that are appropriate to their individual development and career stages. It will provide greater clarity about the nature of professional learning they should undertake in order to increase their level of proficiency in particular domains of leadership. While teachers and school leaders will reflect on and self-assess their current capacity against the Leadership Framework, a custom-built 360 degree feedback survey based on the Leadership Framework will become available later in 2007 as another means of assessing their leadership capabilities and development needs.
The Department is tailoring its professional learning programs to develop the capabilities described in the Leadership Framework. Schools, collegiate groups, clusters and networks, in turn, can also use the Leadership Framework to design learning experiences that develop these capabilities.
A developmental approach involves the construction of a framework which identifies key dimensions of development as a teacher (leader). Each of these dimensions describes and illustrates developing competence (knowledge and skill) as illuminated by research into practice. Masters, 1998, p3
An important consideration in the development of the Leadership Framework was to design a resource that was applicable to teachers and school leaders. This was based on the view that leadership is an important part of teachers’ practice and a critical means of supporting and sustaining school improvement. Given the complex challenges associated with leadership, it should not be confined to those in Principal Class positions. Rather, leadership should be distributed and shared more widely. Effective leaders recognise that knowledge about the challenges facing their organisation, and the expertise required to address them, can be developed or may reside with other members of the school community. Consequently, staff expertise needs to be maximised by distributing authority and responsibility throughout the school.
The Leadership Framework will be of use to teachers and school leaders regardless of the context in which they work — special, primary and secondary schools; schools in metropolitan, regional and rural areas; small and large schools; and schools with diverse student populations. Schools need leadership in all five domains. However, the domains of leadership on which leaders draw at any particular point in time are responsive to the organisational context in which the leaders operate, and the people with whom they work.
Distributed leadership means multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the contours of expertise in an organisation, made coherent through a common culture.Elmore, 2000, p15
RA
TIO
NA
LE
4
LEADERSHIP CAPABILITIES
Within each domain there are three Leadership Capabilities. The Leadership Capabilities represent the expected knowledge, skills and dispositions required for effective leadership performance. Each capability:
> describes a broad expected skill or knowledge that a school leader should be able to exhibit;
> is supported by a set of critical indicative tasks that need to be performed in order to demonstrate adequate and appropriate evidence of the capability; and
> is unique, in that it describes an activity to be performed that is not presented elsewhere in the profiles.
Each of the indicative tasks can be performed at varying levels of quality and it is these levels of performance quality that help to define the overall level of demonstrated capability.
What is a capability?
The word capability carries two meanings. First, it is described as the quality of being capable, that is, of being able to do things.
The second meaning of capability is that of an undeveloped faculty or property, a condition that can be turned to use.
In its first sense, capability refers to the capacity to perform the work of the profession; capability is both necessary for the performance and enables performance. In its second sense, capability can be said to provide a basis for developing future competence, including the possession of the knowledge and skills necessary for future professional work (Eraut, 1994).
OR
GA
NIS
AT
ION
OF
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP F
RA
ME
WO
RK
TECHNICAL LEADERSHIP
HUMAN LEADERSHIP
CULTURAL LEADERSHIP
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
SYMBOLIC LEADERSHIP
LEADERSHIP PROFILES
Within each Leadership Domain, a set of proficiency level statements has been created to describe how a leader performs across the range of Leadership Capabilities relevant to that domain.
Each profile consists of a group of statements that combine to illustrate increasing proficiency in each domain. The statements are indicative of the behaviour at each level. They are not an exhaustive list that can be used in the form of a checklist. They do, however, enable a school leader to understand how particular leadership capabilities could be evidenced at each level and to match their own performance to a proficiency level within all five domain profiles.
Each profile
> allows for multiple levels of performance quality to be identified along developmental continua;
> defines a series of levels that are hierarchical and sequential;
> is underpinned by theories of learning;
> represents a scale in which lower levels are generally precursors to higher levels; and
> depends on the development and use of quality criteria that are expressed in the form of ordered, transparent descriptions of quality performance.
The capabilities and proficiency level statements for each of the five Leadership Domains follow. Underneath the level statements for each domain is depicted the relationship of the levels for that domain with those for the other domains.
The Leadership Framework comprises three main components: Leadership Domains, Leadership Capabilities and Leadership Profiles.
LEADERSHIP DOMAINS
There are five Leadership Domains: Technical, Human, Educational, Symbolic and Cultural. The Leadership Domains describe the major areas of leadership practice.
5
Technical Leadership Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Human Leadership
Educational Leadership
Symbolic Leadership
Cultural Leadership
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Leaders foster a common understanding of the school’s context among the school community. They help others to understand the impact of change on people and the school. To implement the school’s learning and teaching policies, they audit and monitor the adequacy of the resources. Leaders hold themselves and others accountable for making decisions in accordance with Departmental and legislative requirements. They share their own performance plan to demonstrate alignment with school priorities and provide opportunities for others to develop their skills at giving, receiving and interpreting feedback.
Leaders develop decision-making processes that recognise the school’s context and use a consultative approach to strategic planning. Change management principles are used to inform the implementation of new initiatives. They involve staff in identifying resource needs and making decisions about priorities and design processes to monitor the use of resources. A range of strategies are used to attract additional resources to the school. To improve practice throughout the school, they establish a staff performance and development process and draw on a range of feedback sources. Leaders set performance and behavioural expectations for all members of the school community.
Leaders use an understanding of the school’s context, including the school’s readiness for change, to decide how and when to implement improvement initiatives. They develop processes to monitor progress towards achieving school goals and priorities. They analyse the use of resources in relation to student learning and establish performance measures to assess the impact of these resources on priorities. When setting expectations for performance and behaviour, they engage the school community in the development of protocols.
Leaders ensure that policies related to resource allocation are responsive to changing needs and establish processes to continuously evaluate the impact of resources on priorities. The school community is encouraged to share responsibility for managing the school’s resources. Leaders establish processes that enable staff to take individual and collective responsibility for achieving goals. They ensure that feedback is used to inform the school’s professional learning strategy.
Leaders use an understanding of broader educational and political influences to inform strategic thinking and planning and initiate processes that enhance educational outcomes across the system. They use improvement strategies appropriate to the nature of change. Leaders are recognised for their innovative use of resources to improve student learning. They evaluate policies to ensure needs and priorities are met. Performance data is synthesised to continuously improve school practices and others are encouraged to reinforce expectations set by the school community.
TECHNICAL LEADERSHIP
An effective leader demonstrates the capacity to optimise the school’s financial, human and physical resources through sound management practices and organisational systems that contribute to the achievement of the school’s vision and goals.
CAPABILITIES
> Thinks and plans strategically> Aligns resources with desired outcomes> Holds self and others to account
PROFILES
TE
CH
NIC
AL
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP
6
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Leaders adhere to legal requirements that support a just and secure environment. They discuss with staff the impact of student diversity on the school and establish processes to identify students’ needs. They schedule time and create opportunities for informal interaction and formal communication. Procedures and structures are established that enable committees and groups to function effectively.
Leaders implement programs in order to respond to student diversity. To build mutual trust and respect, they make themselves available and give their full attention to others. They encourage the use of established communication procedures and protocols. Roles and responsibilities within the school are clearly defined and relevant information is regularly disseminated to individuals and groups.
Leaders develop protocols that support a just and secure environment. They purposefully engage in activities to build relationships and demonstrate empathy when dealing with others. Opportunities to participate in decision-making are provided. Leaders differentially allocate resources and match the expertise of members of the school, local and wider community to the needs of students. They act as a coach or mentor to others.
HUMAN LEADERSHIP
An effective leader demonstrates the ability to foster a safe, purposeful and inclusive learning environment, and a capacity to develop constructive and respectful relationships with staff, students, parents and other stakeholders.
CAPABILITIES
> Advocates for all students> Develops relationships> Develops individual and collective capacity
PROFILES
HU
MA
N L
EA
DE
RS
HI
P
Technical Leadership
Human Leadership Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Educational Leadership
Symbolic Leadership
Cultural Leadership
Leaders establish collective responsibility for monitoring all aspects of the school that contribute to a just and secure environment. They monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to cater for individual needs and develop shared responsibility for improving student outcomes. The school community is engaged in the development of protocols for decision-making and collective responsibility for decisions made is promoted. Leaders delegate authority to others to undertake specific activities and design strategies and processes that support leadership development. They maintain an environment where all members of the school community feel accepted and valued.
Leaders create an environment that intuitively responds to changes that impact on the school community. A range of strategies are initiated to improve relationships between teams and individuals and behaviours that impact negatively on a cooperative environment are addressed. They create innovative ways of communicating and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of communication strategies. They delegate authority to others in the school community. They publicly support other schools to build trust and cooperation across the system.
7
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Leaders engage staff in professional discussions about effective learning and teaching. They implement processes that support the alignment of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and reporting and ensure the curriculum reflects system goals and requirements. The role feedback plays in supporting learning and teaching is articulated. They promote the use of multiple forms of data to determine starting points and goals for learning. They create opportunities for people to use their expertise and assist them to enhance their practice by identifying strengths and areas for improvement. To promote intellectual exploration, they reference research material and source relevant data to determine priorities for school improvement.
Leaders consider the nature of the student cohort when designing the school’s curriculum. They establish processes in order to support the use of a range of feedback sources to inform teaching and learning. They assist others to develop their capacity by creating opportunities for staff to learn from each other. Leaders develop a shared understanding of the implications of data for planning improvements. They support staff to experiment with a range of strategies to improve their practice.
Leaders design learning, teaching and management interactions based on how people learn and support the application of learning theories in classroom practice. School practices are monitored to ensure alignment of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and reporting with goals for student learning. They design a curriculum that is responsive to system changes and to changes in the student cohort. Leaders manage staff performance and development to improve student outcomes and monitor the extent to which feedback informs professional learning. Opportunities for reflection are incorporated in a range of forums.
Leaders challenge others to continually improve their performance. Classroom practice is evaluated to determine professional learning needs. They ensure that teacher performance and development processes are linked to teacher practice, program effectiveness and professional learning. Resources are allocated in order to support the school community to engage in an ongoing process of inquiry and reflection. Leaders design improvement strategies based on empirical evidence.
Leaders ensure common models of learning and teaching underpin all classroom practice. They ensure that the principles of developmental learning inform the alignment of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and reporting. To improve learning outcomes, they verify that students and staff self-evaluate against goals and targets. Leaders promote further improvement by systematically collecting evidence of how reflective practices contribute to improvement in teacher practice. They influence curriculum practices in other schools and design initiatives that build the capacity of people across the system.
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
An effective leader demonstrates the capacity to lead, manage and monitor the school improvement process through a current and critical understanding of the learning process and its implications for enhancing high quality teaching and learning in every classroom in the school.
CAPABILITIES
> Shapes pedagogy> Focuses on achievement> Promotes inquiry and reflection
PROFILES
ED
UC
AT
ION
AL
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP
Technical Leadership
Human Leadership
Educational Leadership Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Symbolic Leadership
Cultural Leadership
8
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Leaders use evidence to identify their learning needs and undertake professional learning to improve their performance. They openly communicate the importance of maintaining wellbeing and monitor and control their emotional reactions to different situations. They support the development of a common language around the school’s values and vision and encourage others to act in accordance with them. Processes that support the achievement of school goals are documented and implemented. Leaders read current research papers, share effective practice and allocate time for people to work and learn together.
Leaders demonstrate a commitment to learning and growth by acknowledging the importance of their own learning and that of others. They structure opportunities for feedback to improve their emotional awareness. They demonstrate the importance of taking responsibility for one’s own wellbeing, including accessing information and services to support their wellbeing and that of others. The links between processes and school goals are made clear to all members of the school community and they explain the basis on which decisions are made. They encourage staff to read research material. Collaborative processes are established to support professional learning and enable individuals to learn from each other.
Leaders ensure that the school’s values are reflected in school practices and that goals are achieved through well-defined and defensible processes. They evaluate processes to ensure their continuing alignment with school goals. Collaborative practices are established across the school community and structures and processes that support wellbeing are created. They design a whole school professional learning strategy that aligns individual learning plans with school goals and support staff to link their own evidence-based research to practice. They actively promote the value of public education.
Leaders demonstrate a commitment to learning and growth by creating opportunities to share their learning across the system. They coach and mentor others to enhance their emotional intelligence. They ensure that all members of the school community take responsibility for their own and others’ wellbeing. The impact of professional learning on student outcomes is evaluated. They promote the school’s values in the local community. They work with other schools and across the system to generate and share knowledge and maximise the access of all students to a quality education.
SYMBOLIC LEADERSHIP
An effective leader demonstrates the capacity to model important values and behaviours to the school and community, including a commitment to creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities within the school, and across all levels of the system.
CAPABILITIES
> Develops and manages self> Aligns actions with shared values> Creates and shares knowledge
PROFILES
SY
MB
OL
IC L
EA
DE
RS
HI
P
Technical Leadership
Human Leadership
Educational Leadership
Symbolic Leadership Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Cultural Leadership
9
CULTURAL LEADERSHIP
An effective leader demonstrates an understanding of the characteristics of effective schools and a capacity to lead the school community in promoting a vision of the future, underpinned by common purposes and values that will secure the commitment and alignment of stakeholders to realise the potential of all students.
CAPABILITIES
> Shapes the future> Develops a unique school culture> Sustains partnerships and networks
PROFILES
CU
LT
UR
AL
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP
Technical Leadership
Human Leadership
Educational Leadership
Symbolic Leadership
Cultural Leadership Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Leaders articulate a vision for the school and celebrate important events that reflect the school’s vision. They communicate with stakeholders to build alliances to support the school’s vision. They talk about the value of diversity and support the development of a unique school culture. They make sure that families and carers are informed of school policies, programs and activities and utilise local experiences to enrich learning and teaching. They influence others by using logical arguments.
Leaders use a collaborative approach to develop a shared vision for the school. They provide opportunities for all members of the school community to have a voice in the school and share their knowledge and experience with others. They promote a sense of pride in current and past achievements and encourage groups and individuals to share them with the school community. They invite families and carers to participate in school activities and draw on expertise in other organisations to extend and enrich learning and teaching.
Leaders make public and reinforce the relationship between the school vision, goals and improvement strategies and use a range of approaches to secure the commitment of others. They use the school’s customs and traditions to enhance student connectedness to the school. Processes are established for families and carers to participate in whole-school decision-making. They formally recognise and acknowledge the achievements of individuals and teams. They form partnerships with other organisations to expand learning and teaching opportunities and work with stakeholders for the benefit of the school community. They seek opportunities to share their knowledge and expertise within and beyond their school.
Leaders consistently reference short-term and long-term school planning and resource decisions to the school vision. They support leaders in other schools to develop processes for shaping a school vision. They respond strategically to opportunities in the external environment for the benefit of the school community. They actively shape, and encourage others to build on, the school’s customs and traditions. Families and carers are supported to participate directly in students’ learning and personal development. Processes are established that enable individuals and teams to acknowledge their own and others’ achievements. They facilitate the sharing of school resources to support the local community and take on a leadership role beyond their school.
Leaders coach and mentor other leaders in the use of influencing strategies to secure commitment to their school vision and goals. Their leadership expertise is sought by others and is recognised publicly. To position the school at the centre of the local community, they maximise access to a range of their services. They assist other education systems and organisations to transfer and adapt innovative practices from their school.
10
THE DREYFUS MODEL FOR SKILL ACQUISITION
A useful construct for understanding the nature of development described in the Leadership Framework is the Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986). The Dreyfus brothers developed a theory of professional expertise that is based on the assumption that capabilities essential to the quality of professional performance can be continually developed throughout one’s career. Their five stage model of skill acquisition acknowledges the complexity of professional work and the length of time necessary to develop proficiency and expertise. Together with a range of other theoretical constructs, the Dreyfus model informed the development of criteria embedded within the Leadership Framework.
DR
EY
FU
S M
OD
EL
Level Description
Novice (beginner) Just getting started in the domain. All action appears to be governed by rules defining allowable moves and strategies. There is no discretionary judgement. Common situations are unfamiliar and are described by more rules.
Advanced Beginner (rookie) Recognises common situations that help in recalling which rules should be exercised. Most action is deliberate application of rules or conscious recall of prior actions in familiar situations. Can perform simple actions. Needs supervision for more complex tasks. Unable to see the entirety of a situation.
Professional (competent) Perceives actions at least partially in terms of long-term goals. Consciously and deliberately plans. Performs most standard actions without conscious application of rules. When faced with a situation, works out appropriate actions by application of rules.
Proficient professional (star) Deals with complex situations effortlessly and decision-making is less laboured. Seldom thinks in terms of rules and may have some difficulty telling others what rules he or she works with. Appropriate action appears to come from experience and intuition, and is deliberately chosen. Considerable experience and practice across a wide range of situations over years of work is evident. Sees situations holistically and what is most important in a situation.
Expert (virtuoso) Operates from a deep understanding of the total situation. Appears to solve difficult, complex problems effortlessly. Enormous breadth and depth of knowledge and acts appropriately without thought or conscious choice of actions. Routinely forms and leads high performing teams and is admired by others as a benchmark of team performance. Performance standards are well beyond those of most practitioners.
11U
SIN
G T
HE
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP F
RA
ME
WO
RKPERFORMANCE AND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS
A key purpose of the Leadership Framework is to inform and enrich conversations linked to performance and development reviews conducted between Senior Education Officers and principals, principals and assistant principals and other members of staff. It will allow these conversations to focus on very specific areas of leaders’ practice and help them to identify their development needs with greater precision and confidence.
Example 1. Principal Class Performance and Development
The Principal Class Performance and Development Process provides a framework that all Principal Class Officers use in planning, reviewing and evaluating school and personal performance. This process is integral to the development of a robust performance and development culture in schools.
Central to the Principal Class Performance and Development Process is the use of multiple sources of feedback to improve performance and continuous learning and development. The Leadership Framework will support the provision of objective and constructive feedback to all Principal Class Officers on their development needs and help guide decisions about appropriate professional learning over the long term.
The capabilities identified in the Leadership Framework are generic and therefore apply to all school leaders, regardless of their role or position. For this reason, the Leadership Framework will support teachers and Principal Class Officers. This implies that, just as a principal will be located at particular levels on the profiles, teachers should also be able to ‘see’ or locate themselves at different levels. In other words, leadership capabilities are not confined to, or exhibited only by, Principal Class Officers.
The Leadership Framework is a system that consists of the profile levels and a 360-degree questionnaire/observation schedule that is used to determine the level of an individual on each of the profiles. The profiles themselves are reference frameworks to help users understand progress and outcomes of the 360-degree assessment. The assessment instrument will consist of a series of 45 items that link the capabilities within domains, the indicative behaviours and quality criteria. After completing the appraisal, a user will be assisted in the interpretation of the assessment by reference to the profile levels.
The following examples illustrate how the Leadership Framework can be used.
PRINCIPAL SELECTION
The Leadership Framework can be used to support principal selection processes. It will assist aspiring leaders, candidates for the principalship and selection panels by enabling them to recognise the capabilities required to effectively perform the role.
Example 2. Principal Selection
The development of an enhanced Principal Selection Process was a commitment made by the Department under the Blueprint for Government Schools 2003 initiative. The purpose of the initiative is to ensure that potential applicants are encouraged to apply for senior leadership positions, and to implement a process that will increase the likelihood that the most appropriate candidates are appointed. The generic selection criteria for the enhanced Principal Selection Process are based on the five domains of leadership identified in the Leadership Framework. The Leadership Framework will:
> inform the professional learning and preparation of school leaders aspiring to the principalship;
> assist applicants reflect on their current leadership strengths and experiences in order to respond to the selection criteria; and
> help selection panels gain a deeper understanding of the domains and capabilities of effective leadership as defined by the Department.
12
COACHING AND MENTORING
Coaching and mentoring are considered highly effective models of professional learning. While there are some important distinctions between coaching and mentoring, their primary purpose is to develop the capacity of the individual. These professional learning models are being used by the Department to build leadership capacity in schools. Many schools have also implemented structured coaching and mentoring opportunities to develop the capabilities of staff. The Leadership Framework will play an important role in providing a focus for these partnerships.
Example 3. Coaching for Principals of Small Schools
Building the Capacity of Principals of Small Schools is a state-wide coaching program for experienced small-school principals. It aims to develop specific leadership behaviours and capabilities. Participants in the program will use the Leadership Framework to:
> identify and describe areas for improvement;
> set goals and develop action plans to improve performance;
> assist the person being coached or mentored to evaluate and monitor their performance over time as they work towards their goals; and
> specify performance standards for the job and review past performance.
LEADERSHIP INDUCTION AND SUCCESSION PLANNING
School principals can use the Leadership Framework to design school-based leadership development plans for potential leaders and members of their leadership team.
Example 4. Leadership and Induction Planning
The Leadership Framework can be used as a basis for interpreting an audit of the capabilities of a leadership team. The data collected can then be used to inform the design of professional learning experiences that target particular capabilities. These experiences may include:
> designing a series of forums for the leadership team that focus on the theory and practice of particular domains;
> creating opportunities to undertake different roles within the school that further develop staff capabilities;
> delegating authority and responsibility for particular initiatives; and
> providing aspirants with the opportunity to shadow Principal Class Officers.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING FOR CURRENT AND ASPIRANT LEADERS
The Department has made a significant investment in the provision of high quality leadership development programs for current and future leaders. These programs are regarded as key components in the Department’s overall strategy to build leadership capacity in Victorian government schools. The Leadership Framework has enabled the Department to clearly define its expectations for the nature and quality of these programs.
Example 5. Leadership Development Programs for Assistant Principals
From 2007, OSE will coordinate the delivery of a suite of leadership development programs for teachers and school leaders. By using the Leadership Framework, OSE has been able to make explicit the objectives and content of the programs. For example, three of these programs are aimed specifically at assistant principals and principals at PR1 level. Each program is highly specialised in that it is designed to develop the capabilities of participants in one particular leadership domain — Technical, Human or Educational Leadership. The Leadership Framework maximises the alignment of leadership development programs with the key capabilities of effective leadership.
US
IN
G T
HE
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP
FR
AM
EW
OR
K
13D
EV
EL
OP
ME
NTA
L L
EA
RN
ING
TH
EO
RIE
S T
HA
T U
ND
ER
PIN
TH
E L
EA
DE
RS
HIP
FR
AM
EW
OR
KVygotsky is best known for describing a ‘zone of proximal development’, or the concept of ‘scaffolded learning’. This is the zone in which an individual is able to achieve with assistance, rather than on his/her own. Thus, a task that is too difficult can be disheartening while a task that is too simple could be tedious. The zone of proximal development embodies a concept of ‘readiness to learn’ that emphasises progress towards higher levels of competence. The boundaries of the zone of proximal development are constantly changing with the learner’s increasing independent competence. What a learner can perform today with assistance they will be able to perform tomorrow independently, thus preparing them for the next more demanding collaboration. When Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development is integrated with Glaser’s concept of criterion referencing and Rasch’s link between the difficulty of a task and the ability or competence of a person, the potential for learners to recognise their current level of performance and what they need to do to reach the next level is achievable.
Bruner’s (1966) theory of cognitive development and learning posited that learning experiences should be structured appropriate to each individual’s level of development. He believed that the basic ideas of the disciplines were capable of being translated at any level of experience. He advocated the use of a spiral curriculum for developing concepts at increasingly higher levels of abstraction. If teachers commenced teaching skills and knowledge appropriate to the learner’s intellectual development, the groundwork for later development would be laid. Later teaching would then build on earlier experiences and understandings to create a more explicit and mature understanding of particular concepts.
Central to the development of the Leadership Framework was the necessity to develop a shared understanding among the Principal Group (see Glossary)and the project team of how these learning theories informed Professor Griffin’s methodology. It was then necessary to translate this understanding of the theory into each stage of the process.
The difference between the level of solved tasks that can be performed with guidance and help and the level of independently solved tasks is the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky, 1962, p117
For Glaser’s (1984) criterion-referenced interpretations a number of thresholds are needed, each representing the division between increasing levels of competence. Checking where an individual is in relation to a series of thresholds does several things: first, it illustrates what has been achieved so far; second, it illustrates what the individual can do now; third, it forecasts where the progress in learning is likely to lead. Griffin, 1997, p12
The methodology that underpins the Leadership Framework draws on the work of Professor Patrick Griffin, Director of the Assessment Research Centre at the University of Melbourne. The methodology is based on the learning theories of Rasch, Glaser, Vygotsky and Bruner to derive an empirical map of learning, in this case mapping the increasing competency of school leaders across a number of key domains and capabilities.
The Leadership Framework is a standards-referenced framework, in that levels are defined along a continuum for interpretive purposes. By focusing on the quality of the performances, emphasis is placed on quality criteria that reflect how well the task was performed, as well as a consideration of the knowledge and skills that underpin the tasks (Griffin, 2001). Standards-referencing is based on the combined work of a Danish mathematician, Georg Rasch (1960, 1980), and the American educational psychologist, Robert Glaser (1963, 1984).
Rasch developed the concept of underlying growth continua or latent traits. He reasoned that the nature of these traits could be defined by the tasks that a learner performed. If the tasks were arranged in order of their increasing amounts of attribute required, then the nature of the trait was defined by both the nature of the tasks and their order. He developed a method of mathematically modelling the levels of difficulty of a task by monitoring a learner’s observable performance. Using this approach (Item Response Modelling), tasks can be assigned a level of difficulty by testing against a range of learners to ascertain the level of competence required to perform them. Individual development can be traced by their progress along the growth continuum.
In 1963, Glaser put forward the concept of criterion-referenced interpretation. This, like Rasch’s approach, also described performance and development in terms of the nature and order of tasks performed. During the 1980s, Glaser extended his idea of criterion-referenced interpretation (using criteria to assess performance) of a domain (area of learning) to the idea of monitoring along stages in a progression of increasing competence. This meant that Glaser had recommended a way of assessing performance at multiple points along a developmental continuum and Rasch had identified a way of measuring the progress. What is important about this work is that the levels of proficiency could be clearly distinguished from each other.
14
1. A set of underlying continua can be constructed that describe development or growth in specific domains of learning. The continua define constructs that are measurable, and have direction and units of magnitude.
DE
VE
LO
PM
EN
TA
L L
EA
RN
IN
G T
HE
OR
IE
S T
HA
T U
ND
ER
PI
N T
HE
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP
FR
AM
EW
OR
K
ASSUMPTIONS THAT UNDERPIN STANDARDS REFERENCING AND PROFILES
The development of standards referenced frameworks of profiles is underpinned by the following assumptions that apply regardless of the subject area or discipline (Griffin, 1997).
2. The continua do not exist in and of themselves, but are empirically constructed to assist in explaining observations of developmental behaviour.
3. Each continuum can be defined by a cohesive set of indicative behaviours representing levels of proficiency in the area of learning. The behaviours can be demonstrated through the performance of representative tasks and can be regarded as either direct or indirect indicators of proficiency.
4. Not all behaviours can be directly observed. Related, indirect behaviours can be used, along with directly observable behaviours, to describe competency or ability.
5. The indicators (behaviours or task descriptions) may be ordered along a continuum according to the amount of the proficiency, competence or ability required for a satisfactory performance or success on that task.
6. People can be ordered along the continuum according to the behaviours they are able to exhibit or the tasks that they are able to perform. The behaviours, in turn, can be interpreted to provide substantive meaning to a level of proficiency or ability.
7. It is not necessary to identify or to observe all possible behaviours or indicators in order to define the continuum. The continuum can be defined by any representative, cohesive sample of indicators that covers a range of levels on the continuum.
8. There is no one correct sample of indicators or pointers that exclusively defines the continuum or the domain, although there may be a set of indicators that is generally agreed upon as important in defining the continuum.
9. While the indicators used to define the continuum are related, there is no causal or dependent relationship between them. It is neither necessary nor obligatory to observe lower order indicators in order to observe higher order behaviours. The existence of higher order indicators implies the ability to demonstrate lower order indicative behaviours. The relationship is probabilistic, not causal.
15
CONSULTATION AND REVIEW
To ensure the Leadership Framework was practically and theoretically robust, an extensive consultation process and review of the literature was undertaken. This process also involved engagement with academic specialists in school leadership and subject matter experts. The three main elements were a Principal Group, a group of Critical Friends, and a literature review.
HO
W T
HE
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP F
RA
ME
WO
RK
WA
S D
EV
EL
OP
ED
The Principal Group
A group of subject matter experts, comprising school principals and regional officers, was invited to participate in the project (see Appendix 1 for a list of members of the group). The input from this group was crucial to ensure practitioner knowledge and experiences informed the Leadership Framework. The group was involved in four workshops during 2006 to critique and provide feedback on the development of the capabilities, performance indicators and profiles. They also assisted in writing the quality criteria.
Members of this group were drawn from the OSE’s Expert Principal Group, participants in the Development Program for High Performing Principals and the Deputy Secretary’s Principals Common. To reflect the diversity of Victorian school principals and the contexts in which they work, the group was representative of school size, type and geographic location.
Critical Friends
A further level of quality assurance was provided by school leadership specialists from Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as the Office of School Education Leadership Team (see Appendix 2). These individuals were engaged as critical friends to the project. They reviewed and provided feedback at critical stages of the project, including the development of the capabilities and performance indicators. The feedback from this group was extremely useful in reflecting on and reviewing the Leadership Framework at each stage of its development.
Research and Documentation
To ensure the Leadership Framework was informed by the latest research on school leadership and the experiences of other education jurisdictions, a systematic examination of local and international leadership frameworks and related documentation was carried out. Leadership frameworks from other Australian states and territories and countries, including the United Kingdom, Scotland, the United States and Canada, were analysed.
There is little to disagree with in terms of the leadership domains as outlined by Sergiovanni. They have a holistic approach that recognises the technical, affective, cultural, symbolic and educational aspects of leadership. There is always the problem with frameworks as to where to categorise; for example, to hold self and others to account — is this an ethical issue/technical? That depends on the type and nature of accountability. Professor Jill Blackmore, Deakin University, 2006; email communication to project team
To ensure the relevance of the Leadership Framework it was essential that there be a cross section of principals involved in the project who had the opportunity to reflect on their own learning journey. The process will ensure that the Leadership Framework is grounded in current practice and therefore be more meaningful for school leaders. Andrew Dalgleish, Principal, Ararat West Primary School
The marriage of these two frameworks is a worthwhile endeavour as it combines the current use of Sergiovanni’s conceptual framework with the empirical work Hay did for the Department several years ago. Dr David Gurr and Dr Lawrie Drysdale, University of Melbourne, 2006; email communication to project team
16
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK
There were six steps in the construction process for the Leadership Framework.
HO
W T
HE
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP
FR
AM
EW
OR
K W
AS
DE
VE
LO
PE
D1. Domain Descriptors
The first step in the development of the Leadership Framework was to delineate the major areas of leadership practice. Since 2004, OSE has been using Thomas Sergiovanni’s (originally 1984, revised 2005) ‘five forces’ of leadership to stimulate debate and develop a common language to describe effective school leadership. For this reason, Sergiovanni’s forces are used as the organising construct for the Leadership Framework.
In 2005, as part of the Department’s enhanced Principal Selection Process, statements were written to extend and tailor the content of Sergiovanni’s five forces to the nature and quality of leadership valued and expected in Victorian government schools. The domain descriptors were articulated in the Principal Selection Consultation Paper of July 2006 (DE&T, 2006), and endorsed through a principal network consultation process.
2. Capabilities
Once the leadership domains were defined, it was necessary to identify leadership capabilities. The main task was to identify the capabilities a leader needs in order to perform effectively in each domain.
3. Performance Indicators
For each capability, a set of performance indicators was identified. Performance indicators are behaviours exhibited and tasks performed that demonstrate the capability. As the name suggests, they are ‘indicative’ only. It is not necessary to identify all performance indicators per capability because there is no one correct sample of indicators or pointers that exclusively defines each capability. However, it was possible to identify a set of indicators that were generally agreed upon as representative and important in defining the capability. In the case of the Leadership Framework, three performance indicators were identified for each capability. This made the task manageable and focused for the interpretation of leadership development within each domain. While the performance indicators were used in the development of the Leadership Framework, they do not appear in the published Leadership Framework. They remain as an integral part of the underpinning 360-degree assessment instrument.
EXAMPLE
Domain: Human Leadership Capability: Develops individual and collective capacity
Performance Indicators
> Invests in the development and growth of people
> Promotes shared decision-making> Distributes leadership
17
4. Quality Criteria
The next step was to write quality criteria for each performance indicator. Quality criteria describe how well one performs a task. They specify varying levels of performance expressed in the form of ordered descriptions of proficiency.
EXAMPLE
Performance Indicator
Promotes shared decision-making.
Quality Criteria
1. I establish procedures and structures that enable committees and groups to function effectively.
2. I create opportunities for others to participate in decision-making.
3. I ensure the school community is engaged in the development of protocols for decision-making.
4. I promote collective responsibility for decisions made.
This phase of the process was particularly challenging because, for each performance indicator, it was necessary to define up to four levels of proficiency. In addition, the quality criteria had to apply to teachers and school leaders. As part of Professor Griffin’s methodology, a set of protocols was used to guide and frame the writing of quality criteria.
HO
W T
HE
LE
AD
ER
SH
IP
FR
AM
EW
OR
K W
AS
DE
VE
LO
PE
D
1. describe a series of performances such that each successive description implies a higher level of performance quality;
2. reflect the learning that is embedded in the performance;
3. enable an inference to be made about developmental learning— there should be no counts of things right and wrong;
4. discriminate between performances of increasing quality learning;
5. contain one central idea that can be recognised, with four or less judgement levels for any task or indicator;
6. reflect work or known behaviour or work samples covering a diverse range of performance or work quality;
7. avoid language that is ambiguous with no comparative terms used in defining quality of performance;
8. enable persons assessed to verify and understand their performance defined by the criteria;
9. consistently and coherently describe performance within the same developmental learning sequence;
10. reflect their relative difficulty compared to all other criteria;
11. enable reliable and consistent judgements across judges; and
12. self-weight based on their discrimination capacity only — there is no need for differential weights to be applied.
A criterion describes the point at which we decide something changes from one state to another or moves from one level to another. The criterion is the threshold that defines the boundary between levels. To cross the threshold or criterion indicates a change of status. Criterion referencing is the process of referring our evidence to this threshold in order to make a decision regarding which side of particular thresholds a performance represents. Griffin, 2003, p10
Rules for writing quality criteria
Quality criteria must:
18H
OW
TH
E L
EA
DE
RS
HI
P F
RA
ME
WO
RK
WA
S D
EV
EL
OP
ED
5. Validating the Quality Criteria
To determine the validity of the quality criteria, or the degree to which they approximated the expected levels of proficiency, teachers and school leaders from across the state assessed themselves against the quality criteria. This was accomplished by generating a stratified random sample comprising 1500 teachers, assistant principals, principals and Senior Education Officers and inviting them to complete an online survey.
The response rate for the questionnaire was extremely high, with over 1150 completions when only 500 were necessary to validate the quality criteria. This provided a very strong empirical base on which to conduct the validation using Rasch analysis. The results of this analysis showed that the quality criteria:
> clearly differentiated between performances of increasing quality;
> described a series of performances such that each successive description implied a higher level of performance quality;
> included an adequate range of levels among and within the criteria;
> differentiated between levels of responsibility within a school; and
> differentiated between those who had been trained in leadership and those who had not.
6. Profiles
The final stage in the process was to interpret the increasing levels of proficiency and write the leadership profiles. Based on the Rasch analysis, the quality criteria were re-ordered within domains, in terms of the increasing amount of ability needed to demonstrate them. This ordering of criteria defined a continuum of increasing competence. Clusters of quality criteria that were at approximately the same level of proficiency were identified along the continuum for each domain. Where these clusters were well separated, it was possible to identify the levels of proficiency by interpreting the broad level of skills and knowledge that the criteria in a cluster had in common. This yielded an indication of what the profile would eventually look like. Using this methodology, five levels of proficiency were distinguished in each of the Technical, Human, Educational and Cultural Leadership Domains and four in the Symbolic Domain. When writing the profiles, it was important to ensure that:
> each successive profile level implied an increasing level of competence;
> the profiles were cohesive, accessible and free of jargon; and
> the profiles provided rich and meaningful descriptions of leadership.
The conceptual relationship between the various components of the framework is shown opposite.
DOMAIN
1.1
CAPABILITY
1.1.1
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
1.1.1.1
QUALITY CRITERION
1.1.1.2
QUALITY CRITERION
1.1.2
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
1.1.2.1
QUALITY CRITERION
1.1.2.3
QUALITY CRITERION
1.1.2.2
QUALITY CRITERION
1.1.3
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR
1.1.3.1
QUALITY CRITERION
1.1.3.2
QUALITY CRITERION
1.2
CAPABILITY (repeats model 1.1)
1.3
CAPABILITY (repeats model 1.1)
Conceptual Framework
19Q
UE
ST
ION
S A
BO
UT
TH
E L
EA
DE
RS
HIP
FR
AM
EW
OR
K
Why is there overlap between elements of the domains?
When leaders are engaged in a leadership task, they draw on and use a range of capabilities each time they undertake such a task. They do not use one capability exclusively in a single domain of leadership. There is a natural overlap between the capabilities because they are interrelated around the one key idea of leadership. However, the importance of understanding leadership as a holistic concept should be balanced with an appreciation of the critical capabilities required of effective leaders across all of the domains.
Given the nature of learning and development, individuals vary in terms of their strengths, demonstrating greater competence in some domains than others. Therefore, individuals will not necessarily perform at the same level in each domain. As a teacher or leader reads through a profile they will be able to identify the level that on balance best describes their capabilities in that domain at that point in time. However, while it should be possible to identify the relevant level, it needs to be
Why does the Leadership Framework refer to ‘levels’ rather than role, position or other comparative terms?
The term ‘level’ is used because it implies development and progression and emphasises the observability of the behaviours that are necessary to gauge the quality of an individual’s performance. There is an important difference between using directly observable criteria for the level of performance quality within each domain profile instead of broad, generic criteria. For example, role labels such as principal and assistant principal or comparative terms like ‘basic’, ‘good’, ‘established’, ‘superior’, ‘better’, and so on require interpretation as they focus on expectations of the group an individual belongs to rather than addressing the knowledge, skills and dispositions exhibited in the individual’s performance. Similarly, it is difficult to predict and identify future learning opportunities that are underpinned by an understanding of how developmental learning occurs within that domain of learning.
Why does the Symbolic Leadership domain have only four levels?
The levels for each profile in the Leadership Framework were determined by Rasch modelling. The modelling was applied to the results of a survey of practising teachers and school leaders in order to validate quality criteria that were necessary to write the profiles. The modelling identified four discrete levels of performance in the Symbolic Domain. However, in the other four domains the same modelling process clearly identified five levels. This does not suggest that Symbolic Leadership is more or less difficult than other domains, but that the modelling applied discerned only four levels.
Why do the profiles begin and end at different points on the continuum?
The absence of uniform beginning and end points demonstrates the relative difficulty between the domains and is the result of Rasch modelling. It implies that attaining proficiency in some domains is more difficult than others. For example, the Cultural Leadership profile starts at a higher level than the profile for Technical Leadership. This suggests that the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the tasks at Level 1 for Cultural Leadership are greater than those required for performing the tasks at Level 1 of Technical Leadership.
recognised that the capabilities described may not fit neatly into one particular level. It is more likely that elements of a capability or capabilities will be evident across several levels. In determining the appropriate level of proficiency, it is assumed that the previous level has already been achieved. In the future, it will also be possible to complete an online 360-degree feedback survey or a self-assessment survey that will place the individual at a particular level in each domain.
How do I locate myself in the profiles?
20
In 2007, a series of workshops will be conducted to develop a collective understanding of the content of the Leadership Framework and how it can be used to support the development of teachers and school leaders.
An online survey tool will become available in 2007 to help teachers and school leaders assess their leadership capabilities. The tool will consist of a 360-degree feedback survey collecting feedback from a range of people, as well as a self-assessment survey. The surveys will assist individuals to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement and will have the capacity to locate an individual on the continuum for each leadership domain based on their survey score.
The Leadership Framework will be supported by the development of a website that links the online survey tools with further support information. This will include relevant professional learning opportunities, case studies and digital stories showing how the Leadership Framework can be used.
Importantly, the Leadership Framework will be refi ned and further developed on a regular basis. It is anticipated that the use of the Leadership Framework will lead to the enrichment of the existing profi les and the identifi cation of additional levels in each of the domains.
FU
TU
RE
DIR
EC
TIO
NS
Although a signifi cant portion of the knowledge base of a profession is generated by scholars in the academy, it is not professional knowledge unless and until it is enacted in the crucible of ‘the fi eld’. The fi eld of practice [Schulman’s emphasis] is the place where professions do their work, and claims for knowledge must pass the ultimate test of value in practice. Schulman, 2004, p15
21
Blueprint for Government Schools
The Blueprint for Government Schools is a Victorian Government policy document released in 2003. It provides a framework for the future directions of education in the Victorian government school system — a system with effective teachers, effective leaders and effective schools. The Blueprint outlines the Government’s reform agenda and adopts various strategies and initiatives to facilitate this agenda.
See www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/blueprint/
Blueprint for Government Schools — Development Program for High Performing Principals
The Development Program for High Performing Principals is a professional development program offered by the Office of School Education to high performing principals. The program is designed to provide principals who are willing to collaborate, build their own capacity and the capacity of others, and engage in and promote continuous learning, with the opportunity to become ‘system leaders’.
See www.education.vic.gov.au/proflearning/schoolleadership/program/hpp.htm.
Expert Principal Group
The Expert Principal Group provided a mechanism for consulting with principals and providing feedback to the Office of School Education in relation to leadership and development initiatives during the implementation of the Blueprint for Government Schools. It comprised two principals from each region.
GL
OS
SA
RY
Leading across Effective Small Schools
Leading across Effective Small Schools is a professional development program offered to teams of teachers and leaders from small schools. A team comprises a cluster of six to seven small schools (schools with 70 students or less). The program is designed to enhance participants’ leadership capabilities through working collaboratively on an improvement area.
See www.education.vic.gov.au/proflearning/schoolleadership/program/smallsch.htm
Learning to Lead Effective Schools
Learning to Lead Effective Schools is a state-wide leadership development strategy, designed to improve the practice and performance of schools in the Victorian government school system. The publication, Learning to Lead Effective Schools, provides educators with an outline of all leadership programs currently offered by the Department of Education.
See www.education.vic.gov.au/proflearning/schoolleadership/default.htm
Office of School Education Leadership Team
The Office of School Education Leadership Team consists of the nine Regional Directors, three General Managers and six Assistant General Managers. The team reports to the Deputy Secretary, Office of School Education.
PR1 level
This is the job classification for principals who are employed on the first of six salary levels.
Principal Class Officers
Principal Class Officers are those educators who work in a principal or assistant principal position.
Principal Class Performance and Development
The Principal Class Performance and Development Process was released in November 2005. It provides a framework that all Principal Class Officers use in planning, reviewing and evaluating school and personal performance.
See www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/blueprint/fs3/management.htm
Principal Group
A group of subject matter experts, comprising school principals and regional officers, invited to participate in the project.
Principal Selection Process
An enhanced Principal Selection Process was developed in 2006 to ensure that the most appropriate candidates are appointed to Principal Class positions in the Victorian government school system. The enhanced process has embraced modern recruitment practices, additional principal representation on selection panels, and generic selection criteria that reflect the Leadership Framework leadership domains.
See www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/blueprint/fs3/selection.htm
Principals Common
This group was initiated in 2004 by the Deputy Secretary, Office of School Education, and comprises two principals nominated from each region in Victoria. The group meets four times per year with the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary of the Department of Education to seek their views on a range of emerging policy issues, and to further their understanding of the work of the central office.
Senior Education Officers
Each of the nine regional offices of the Department of Education has a number of Senior Education Officers (SEOs) who form a part of the regional leadership team. Senior Education Officers are the Regional Directors’ delegated officers who work in partnership with a nominated number of principals, schools and networks to improve school performance and student outcomes. Generally, SEOs are promoted from the Principal Class to these positions.
Sergiovanni leadership model
Thomas J Sergiovanni’s transformational leadership model identifies five forces of leadership. These are Technical Leadership, Human Leadership, Educational Leadership, Symbolic Leadership and Cultural Leadership.
Networks
There are 64 networks across Victoria that vary in size according to the number of schools in each network. Each network is chaired by a principal who holds the position for an agreed period of time, generally two years. Networks play a significant role in policy consultation as well as assuming collective responsibility for developing leadership capacity and school and system reform.
Office of School Education
The Office of School Education is one of the four offices of the Victorian Department of Education. Its role is to:
> establish resource priorities and planning frameworks for the delivery of education and support of students;
> improve, monitor and report on individual performance of government schools;
> manage the implementation of the School System Reform processes; and
> implement effective operational processes and accountability arrangements to support the school system to deliver better outcomes for students.
See www.education.vic.gov.au/about/structure/ose.htm
22A
PP
EN
DIC
ESAppendix 2: Critical Friends
Professor Lawrence Angus Head of the School of Education, University of Ballarat, Victoria
Doctor Brenda Beatty Senior Lecturer, Monash University, Victoria
Professor Jill Blackmore Strand Coordinator, Master of Education (Curriculum and Administration), Deakin University, Victoria
Professor Brian Caldwell Managing Director, Educational Transformations, Victoria
Professor Peter Gronn Faculty of Education, Monash University, Victoria
Doctor Lawrie Drysdale Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne, Victoria
Doctor David Gurr Senior Lecturer, Centre for Organisational Learning and Leadership, University of Melbourne, Victoria
Professor Kenneth Leithwood Co-Director, Centre for the Study of School Site Leadership, University of Toronto, Canada
Professor Louise Stoll Visiting Professor of Education, University of Bath, United Kingdom
Associate Professor Lesley Vidovich Associate Professor of Education, University of Western Australia
Andrew Dalgleish Principal Ararat West Primary School
Mandy Dunn Principal Kew East Primary School
Trish Enzinger Principal Birmingham Primary School, Lilydale
John Flanagan Principal Gisborne Secondary College
Cheryl Glowrey Principal South Gippsland Secondary College, Foster
Janet Gregory Principal St Georges Road Primary School
Judi Gurvich Principal Malvern Central School
John Handley Principal Heathmont College
Heather Hopcroft Principal Bimbadeen Heights Primary School, Mooroolbark
Gail James Principal Kalinda Primary School, Ringwood
Sheereen Kindler Assistant Principal Parkdale Secondary College
Karen Kirby Principal in the Centre Skipton Primary School
Anne Klock Principal Baranduda Primary School
Phil Knight Principal Parkdale Secondary College
Rob Lundie Principal Geelong East Primary School
Frances Luke Principal Harrisfield Primary School, Noble Park
Meenah Marchbank Principal Cambridge Primary School, Hoppers Crossing
Gary Norbury Principal Tootgarook Primary School
Loretta Piazza Manager Meadowglen College, Epping
Graham Pratt Principal Kew Primary School
Anthony Tartaro Principal Buckley Park College, Essendon
Mark Thompson Principal Roxburgh Park Primary School
Lenore Thornton Manager Southern Metropolitan Region
Anne Tonkin Principal in the Centre Tecoma Primary School
Gavan Welsh Principal Chilwell Primary School, Newtown
Mary-Anne Rooney Principal Eaglehawk Primary School
Appendix 1: Principal Group
23
Australian Principals Associations Professional Development Council Inc, South Australia (2000) Leaders and Their Learning, Education Development Centre.
Begley, P, Svede, V, Jeudy–Hugo, D, Ontario Project Team (1993) The School Leadership Profile — A Canadian Example.
Bruner, J (1966) Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Council of Chief State School Officers (1996) Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium — Standards for School Leaders.
Department for Education and Skills, United Kingdom (2004) National Standards for Headteachers.
Department of Education and Training, New South Wales School Leadership Capability Framework.
Department of Education and Training, Victoria (2001) Summary: School Leadership Capabilities — A Leadership Development Model for Principals, Assistant Principals and Leading Teachers in Victorian Schools, research report by the Hay Group, DE&T, Melbourne.
Department of Education and Training, Victoria (2005) Performance and Development guide — Principal Class, DE&T, Melbourne.
Department of Education and Training, Victoria (2006) Principal Selection Consultation Paper, DE&T, Melbourne.
Dreyfus, H L and Dreyfus, S E (1986) Mind over Machine, Free Press, New York.
Education Queensland, Department of Education and the Arts (2002) Standards Framework for Leaders.
Elmore, R (2000) Building a New Structure for School Leadership, Albert Schanker Institute.
Eraut, M (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, Falmer Press, London.
Glaser, R (1963) ‘Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions’, American Psychologist, 18, 519–21.
Glaser, R (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93–104.
Goleman, D, Boyatsis, R and McKee, A (2002) The New Leaders — Transforming the Art of Leadership into the Science of Results, Little Brown.
Griffin, P (1993) Profiles: Assumptions and Procedures in their Development, Assessment Research Centre, RMIT, Melbourne.
Griffin, P (1997) Developing Assessment in Schools and Workplaces, Faculty of Education, Deans Lecture Series 1997: An Inaugural Professorial Lecture delivered by Prof. Patrick Griffin, Foundation Chair of Educational Assessment, 18 September, 1997.
Griffin, P (1998) ‘Profiles and reporting in a developmental assessment framework’, Seminar Series Paper, 75, IARTV, Melbourne, August. Reprinted in V Zbar and T Mackay (eds) (2003) Leading the Education Debate, IARTV, Jolimont.
Griffin, P (2001) ‘Using indicators of quality to infer competence’, presentation to the National ACACA Conference, Bridging Assessment and Curriculum Issues Together, Sydney, July 25–27, 2001.
BIB
LIO
GR
AP
HY
Ingvarson, L, Anderson, M, Thornton, N, Jackson A and Gronn, P (2005) Standards for School Leadership Project, National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership (NIQTSL),Teaching and Learning Research Program, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell.
Ingvarson, L, Kleinhenz, E and Danielson, C, (2005) Leadership in Catholic Schools — Development Framework and Standards of Practice, Catholic Education Commission of Victoria, Melbourne.
Lawrence, E (1999) Strategic Thinking — A discussion paper, Research Directorate, Policy, Research and Communications Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada.
Leadership Centre — West Australian Department of Education and Training, Murdoch University, Edith Cowan University (2002) The Leadership Framework — Characteristics of School Leaders.
Masters, G (1998) ‘Standards and assessment for students and teachers: A developmental paradigm’, Seminar Series Paper, 74, IARTV, Melbourne, May. Reprinted in V Zbar and T Mackay (eds) (2003) Leading the Education Debate, IARTV, Jolimont.
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2006) Leadership Strategy — Learning in an On-line World, MCEETYA, Melbourne.
Ministry of Education, New Zealand (1998) Interim Professional Standards for Primary, Secondary and Area School Principals.
National College for School Leadership (2004) Learning to Lead — NCSL’s Strategy for Leadership Learning, NCSL, Nottingham.
Office of Leadership Development and Enhancement, Mississippi Department of Education (1995) Mississippi Standards for School Leaders.
Rasch, G (1960/1980) Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests, Danish Institute for Educational Research, Copenhagen. Expanded edition (1980) with foreword and afterword by B D Wright, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Schulman, L (2004) Teaching as Community Property, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Scottish Executive, (2005) Standard for Headship in Scotland, Teaching in Scotland.
Sergiovanni, T J (1984) Handbook for effective department leadership: concepts and practices in today’s secondary schools, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Sergiovanni, T J (2005) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, 5th edition, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
South Australian Centre for Leaders in Education, Department of Education and Children’s Services (2006) The Five Leadership Framework Propositions.
Sparkes, D (2003) Transformational Professional Learning, e-newsletter, available at www.nsdc.org/library/publications/transformational/ tpl9-03.pdf
Vygotsky, L S (1962) Thought and Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.